Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8384 (CAL)

SMTI. MIRA RANI HALDER v. SRI PAWAN AND ORS

CO/19/2026 · 2026-03-10

Chaitali Chatterjee Das

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** CO/19/2026 Smti. Mira Rani Halder Vs Sri Pawan & Ors. Mr. Sudarsan Biswas … for the petitioner Ms. Preeja Menon … for the opposite party Nos.1 & 2 Mr. N.A.Khan … for the opposite party No. 3 March 10, 2026 [AKB] Item No.1 1. This revisional application is filed against an order No. 103 dated 30th day of January, 2026 passed in Title Suit No. 18 of 2015 by the learned Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Port Blair, South Andaman whereby the learned Court rejected the written statement cum written objection to the counter claim filed by the present petitioner on the prayer made by the defendant no 2. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that by filing such written statement along with counter claim the facts and circumstances mentioned therein becomes adverse and prejudicial to the rights of this present petitioner who is defendant No.3 in the suit and accordingly she filed the said written objection along with written statement to the counter claim filed by the defendant no 2. 3. In this case on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Ms. Preeja Menon, learned Advocate and on behalf of respondent No.3, Mr. N.A.Khan, learned Advocate entered appearance by 2 filing their respective Vakalatnama. It is contended by the learned Advocates that this revisional application cannot be admitted as is beyond the scope and purview of the provisions as enumerated under Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The learned advocate has further relied upon the decision passed by the Coordinate Bench in Eden Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. and others in IA No. GA-COM/7/2025 and prayed for dismissal of this revisional application. 5. Heard the submissions. In the aforesaid case similar prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner that even if a co- defendant raises a counter claim which is directed against the other co-defendant ,such other defendant may be permitted to use additional written statement as against the counter claim .The learned Court while refusing such prayer was of the view that “when the expression ‘parties’ used under Rule 9 (2) to Order VIII, insofar as counter claim is concerned, has to be read, construed and understood between the plaintiff and the defendant and not between the defendants”. 6. 6. In the instant case also the suit was filed by the present respondent No.1 against the defendants/respondents as well as the petitioner for Partition as well as for Recovery of Possession and in connection with the same in terms of the direction passed by the High Court, the respondent No.3 was permitted to file written statement and accordingly she filed the written statement along with a counter claim. The present petitioner being the defendant no 1 filed the written statement as well as 3 written objection to the said written statement cum counter claim .The defendant no 2 prayed for rejection by filing an application ,which was allowed and the written statement cum written objection to the counter claim filed by the petitioner qua the defendant no1 was rejected and excluded from the record for considering the counter claim , by the learned Trial Court on January 30, 2026. 7. The provision under order VIII Rule 6A is clear in this regard where in a suit the defendant may, in addition to his right of pleading, set off under Rule 6 by way of counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after filing of the suit. 8. On the basis of above discussion and the law laid down in this regard, this Court find no merit in this case and hence there in no reason to admit this revisional application and/or to interfere with the same. 9. Accordingly, this revisional application stands dismissed being not admitted. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all legal formalities. (Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)